Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!ginosko!uunet!crdgw1!crdgw1.ge.com!barnett From: barnett@crdgw1.crd.ge.com (Bruce Barnett) Newsgroups: news.newusers.questions Subject: Re: The Ease of Forgery Message-ID: <3395@crdgw1.crd.ge.com> Date: 20 Oct 89 13:41:48 GMT References: <10909@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> <3355@crdgw1.crd.ge.com> <21101@gryphon.COM> Sender: news@crdgw1.crd.ge.com Reply-To: barnett@crdgw1.crd.ge.com (Bruce Barnett) Organization: GE Corp. R & D, Schenectady, NY Lines: 43 In-reply-to: richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) In article <21101@gryphon.COM>, richard@gryphon (Richard Sexton) writes: >Oh nonsense. The messaage here is not ``here's how you forge postings'', >the message is ``things may not always be as they seem''. Fine. So there was one forgery attempt by Dennis Griffin presented as a dare. Well, he was caught. Aren't we proud of ourselves. But now we get this: From: nobody in particular Subject: The Ease of Forgery Message-ID: <10909@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> Date: 18 Oct 89 21:19:37 GMT Sender: news@phoenix.Princeton.EDU Lines: 1 I will be very surprised to see this article traced. And now we will get a slew of messages with people making good and bad guesses on who it is and how it happened. If this person get's caught, ANOTHER person will try. In ANY CASE, people will discuss WHO did the forgery, HOW it was done, HOW it can be detected, and HOW it CAN'T. Why do we need this discussed in the new users newsgroup? What's the point of a second forgery. Or a third? Or even the first? Why can't someone just SAY that fogeries are possible? I will. ANNOUNCEMENT! News can be forged! So can mail! Forgery encourages more forgeries! I do not consider this "nonsense"! -- Bruce G. Barnett uunet!crdgw1!barnett